Talk:Continuation War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

1/3rd of Soviet military machine

No idea what that is supposed to be, but unless the total Soviet military machine consisted of no more than 1.2 million soldiers, it is wrong. I have changed it, hopefully without changing the idea that should have come across. According to Krivosheev (see tables posted here), Leningrad Front committed 188,800 and Karelian Front 202,300. Together ca. 400,000. That includes air forces etc. Andreas 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was some uninformed soul who confuses Winter War and Continuation War. At the end of Winter War, about the third of Soviet forces were deployed to the Finnish front. (Some sources put this to 40%.) Unfortunately it hadn't been only confusion in this article, but also other similar stupidness had been found here and also in related articles. But this is Wikipedia, and we have to endure and correct those. --Whiskey 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk

Soviet troops occupied Petrozavodsk on 28 June 1944. - Eh, shouldn't it be retaken? With Petrozavodsk being an initially Russian city. --Illythr 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor even liberated. Retaken indicates that it was captured earlier but lost after that. Petrozavodsk was initially Russian/Soviet city, and it was occupied by Finns, so the liberation from occupation works fine. --Whiskey 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'liberated' is apposite in this context. - Mikko H. 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have done the deed. Still, the next sentence (about food delivery and all) makes the whole paragraph look a bit strange. Perhaps reclaimed would be a good neutral replacement? --Illythr 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another minor unrelated thing: These, as well as some volunteers from the occupied Eastern Karelia, formed the Kin Battalion (Finnish: "Heimopataljoona"). At the end of the war, the USSR required that the members of the Tribe Battalion were to be handed over to the Soviet Union.

So, is it Kin or Tribe Battalion? Probably a minor translation mixup. --Illythr 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on the naming issue in [1]. Currently they seem to be favoring Kinship.:-) --Whiskey 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the consensus favours 'Kindred' :-) - Mikko H. 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Like one of those Kindred? Whoah, scary! (Just kiddin'!) :-) --Illythr 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Introductionary paragraph

The introductionary paragraph starts to contain too much information. I think it could be a good idea to move that to the text and keep the paragraph as simple as possible. Both starting and ending of the war are fuzzy, and they can be properly only addressed in the text. Any opinions? --Whiskey 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ending dates are mentioned twice and this sentence is, IMO, out of place there: Material support from, and military cooperation with Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour. --Illythr 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have trimmed the intro down a bit. Mind checking it out? --Illythr 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A little bit better. I have more radical edit in mind, because for the ending dates one could use armstice September 4, 1944 (for Finns), September 5, 1944 (for Soviets), interim peace treaty September 19, 1944, Final peace treaty at Paris February 10, 1947 and ratification of the Paris peace treaty April 18, 1947 (for Finns) and August 29, 1947 (for Soviets). There is a similar bunch of dates concerning the beginning of the war. --Whiskey 11:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, but you said that the paragraph contains too much information! I thought you wanted removing stuff, not adding it?--Illythr 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to remove stuff, heavily, and put all those details in the text, not in the introductionary paragraph. I'll try to put in what I have in mind (and revert it immediately back.) --Whiskey 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the removed text and references should be located into the relevant place in the article. --Whiskey 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

a) When the Finnish Army occupied russian East Karelia 1941–1944 several concentration camps were set up for Russian civilians. The first camp was set up on 24 October 1941, in Petrozavodsk. Around 9,000 of the prisoners perished due to malnourishment, 90% of them during the spring and summer 1942. - by user:Ben-Velvel
b) Before they retreated, Finns delivered food to people for two weeks. This is a rare or even unequaled act in the war history. - by user:Kahkonen

So, uh, which one's true? Any references? --Illythr 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These aren't necassarily contradictory statements. Malnourishment was a serious problem early on, but things got better as the war progressed. Of the two statements a) is correct (although I can't check the numbers now), don't know about b). - Mikko H. 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Like Ben-Velvel wrote, most of these deaths occurred during the first winter and summer of the war, and Finns were not experienced to handle these kind of camps. The amount of food was in principle enough, but during the first year the quality of the food lacked too much, and people didn't have their homegrown additions due to displacement. Also, it should be noted, that only 13% of populace was confined to the camps at their highest, and the time Soviet forces liberated the region that had dropped to 7%. I don't have sources right now available to support claim b). What I do know about the situation, the Finns had depot in Petrozavodsk, and they managed to evacuate most of the military material from there. It could be that they made good of a necessity and distributed the left-over food to civilians instead of destroying it or giving it to advancing enemy. Maybe someone with more knowledge could inform us better...

For a a) claim the number seems to be inflated. At Finnish literature it is generally given as 4,000-4,500 people perished on the camps. At Soviet literature the numbers around 9,000 but also up to 12,000 has been seen. At the Finnish side the study of Antti Laine: "Suur-Suomen kahdet kasvot" (The two faces of Greater Finland) is the best source. Dr. Laine states that in no way there could have been more than 5,000 deaths in the camps and supports the official Finnish numbers received from official camp documentation. --Whiskey 09:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Helge Seppälä (one of the Finnish military historians more critical of Finnish actions) in Suomi miehittäjänä says c. 4000 people perished in the camps in 1941-44, c. 3500 of them in the summer of 1942. - Mikko H. 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Minimalist Introduction paragraph

It seems that people want to have a lot of information on the introductory paragraph. I suggest that we put the minimalist version of it and add all other information to the relevant places into the text itself. If you have something to complain about that, please state your claims in this talk page before editing the article itself. (And this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder if that anon knows about the existence of talk pages...

PS: Hey Whiskey, noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. So far I have been mostly fascist, nazi, right-extremist, lahtari, white officer or even socialist.8-))

I'll start myself the reasoning:

Why June 25: Neither Finland or Soviet Union acknowledged that the state of war existed between the nations at that time. Soviet ambassador Orlov still worked in Helsinki between June 22 and June 25.

Why September 19: The date when interim peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Even though cease fire had been in effect two weeks, the state of war still existed between the countries. --Whiskey 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of East Karelia before 1917

In Russian Empire East Karelia was a part of the Province of Olonets ([2]). 289,531 of its inhabitants were Russians, 62,695 people were finnic-speaking (but Orthodox) people of Karelians. Russian population of Karelia also was very ancient (russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century).

p.s. I shall open to you a small secret :), the Russian population of all northern and northeast Russia is result of mixture of east Slavs with Finnic-speaking people and such active element as Scandinavians-vikings

Ben-Velvel 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not trust the tsarist census. Karelians may well claim to be Russian, and still be fluent in Finnish/Karelian. -- Petri Krohn 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About "awful tsarism". Finns-Suomi and Karelians prospered in the Empire, no violent russification existed (have you other data?). By the way, the Great Duchy of Finland possessed the big privileges, for example, its natives were not called up for military service. It had independent police and bolsheviks easy lived in Finland while the imperial police strenuously searched for them... About Karelians. If you can translate from Russian, please read Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Karelians are one of peoples of the Finno-Ugrian language family, influenced by Russian culture already in the early Middle Ages.They are Orthodox. Please visit Petrozavodsk, if you do not trust me. It is necessary to distinguish actually Finns of Finland (Suomi) and numerous nationalities of Finno-Ugrian family living in Russia (Karelians, Mordva, Maris etc) Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century... Are you refering to Staraya Ladoga? This is not in East Karelia (athough the original inhabitants may have been finnic.) Can you cite sources?

West and East Karelia were the territories of medieval Novgorod principality ( [3]). Staraya Ladoga of 9th century was the center of northern Russia and had mixed population of east Slavs, Scandinavians and finnic tribes (not Suomi). In the West and East Karelia there are such ancient Russian Novgorod settlements as Korela (Priosersk), Olonets, Oreshek, Kargopol, Serdobol, Pudozh etc. The West Karelia only in 1617 has passed under the control of Swedes. The Russian imperial government has left the West Karelia in structure of Great Duchy of Finland after conquests of 1710 and 1809. The East Karelia always was part of Russia and had mixed Russo-Karelian population Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Ben-Velvel

Valaam monks claim the monastry was founded in the 9th century, not by Russian but by Greek monks. -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Greek monks were in Kiev. They did not come far on the north :) Valaam monastery was founded by Russian monks Sergiy and German and has been populated by Russian monks over 1000 years and has been some times ruined by the Swedish forces. [4] Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC), St.Petersburg

Picture in "Finnish occupation policy"

The picture is soviet propaganda picture, i.e a fake one... in my opinion shouldn't be used or at least should be stated that it is a fake. (anon)

Please provide proof (i.e. references) to back up your claim. Fisenko 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It almost for sure is propaganda but there isn't anything faked still. There were children (30-40%) at the camps as they weren't split up with their parents. First they were put to quarantine camps that lasted for 2 weeks. There was a hospital at the camp, they could work on forestry works and do confession-"school" in church. After the quarantine the people were split to working places what they had done before; most ingrians were put to farming. Especially workers were needed at farming, food was really on scarce. But not to concentrate just on this side of the war - Soviet union's Gulags. Do you know how many people were put to Siberia from the Baltics? --Pudeo (Talk) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). Now stop whining. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we talk about Gulag in the article dedicated to Finnish occupation policy in Soviet Karelia ? There are plenty of articles dedicated to Gulag on Wikipedia. Statements with no proof such as "this is almost for sure is propaganda" or tales about how "pleasant" it was for the Russians in Finnish concentration camps have little credibility either. The fact is there were Finnish concentration camps for ethnic Russian civilians during the war and this fact should be mentioned in the article. Fisenko 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a headache or something? :) I just told all the information I got from "Jatkosota Kronikka" ISBN 951-20-3661-4, 1991. As this information isn't told in the article either. It has that image and says after the occupation. But use logic, the image is classed as taken in the USSR before 1973. Therefore, it is taken by Soviet photographers, be they propaganda or whatever, doesn't matter. I don't know whether they left the workers in the camps or not so I don't know if they put some children in the camp again just to make images for propaganda against "nazism". And indeed the work camps have to be mentioned; Why I brought gulags is that this article doesn't cover Soviet attrocities, partisans and transports, russification of the ingrians and others. But I won't complain. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be removed. It gives a misleading idea that Finnish practises during the war were comparable with those promoted by Hitler and Stalin, leaders who had no idea of human dignity.Spespatriae 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa kiihkovenäläisyyttä muualle! --Jaakko Sivonen 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo is indeed fake and taken for propaganda by the Soviets after the war. My source is Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). If it is returned it must state clearly that it's a Soviet forgery, but it's best for it not to appear in the article since it gives the wrong picture for someone browsing through the article. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My mother's uncle was in Soviet Karelia during the war, and he told me the about the prison camps. That's when I heard of them ion the first time. --Lalli 06:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the existence of the prison camps, only the reality of the photo in question. --Jaakko Sivonen 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the page 138 of the book ISBN 951-0-27645-6 particularly refers to this very image and states that it is false? Please elaborate. --Irpen 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has the same photo and then the caption tells about prison camps and then it reads, I'll quote (in Finnish): "On myös muistettava, että kuva on venäläisten sodan jälkeen ottama ja lavastama." A translation: "It must also be remembered that the picture is taken after the war and staged by the Russians." --Jaakko Sivonen 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "staged". Rather "framed", as almost all of the war photos are. No problem with the picture, the camp and the sign are authentic. --Lalli 15:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against adding the picture to the article. Also the most inhabitants of the camps were underage or elderly, as almost all working age population were evacuated before Finns came. As a compromise I suggest modifying the text of the picture with one word: instead of using "during", let's use "after", as it is the case the picture was taken after Soviets recaptured the town. (As most photos showing the suffering in German KZ camps were taken by Soviet, British and American soldiers, not Germans, which had mostly clinical, "beautified" versions in their photos.) --Whiskey 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the picture since it is Russian propaganda and it is spread by the Russian Fisenko for obvious non-NPOV reasons. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. It is no more propaganda than the famous Auswitz pictures. They were all taken after the camp's liberation. Does not make them unusable or "false" or "Allied propaganda" in any way. --Irpen 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Soviet Union is known for its propaganda and there is no reason to think that the prison camp was like that. It was taken after the Finns had left: the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary, therefore it was a Russian prison camp at the time of the photo, not a Finnish one! --Jaakko Sivonen 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that "the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary"???. If yes, spit it out as you were asked on Talk:Russophobia for ages now. If not, stop your rampage. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is that the Finns had already left the area when the photo was taken, so the people had already been released from there (if the children ever were there). So someone put them back there. --Jaakko Sivonen 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So do you insinuate that pics of German concentration camps, taken both by Anglo-American forces and Soviet forces, are fakes? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko, you are beating the dead horse. Currently, the text in picture states that it was taken after Finns had retreated from Petrozavodsk. (And it seems that nobody is any longer challenging that...) And it doesn't matter if the picture was staged or not, because it still presents one of the striking peculiarities of the Finnish camps in East Karelia: Due to the evacuation of working age males and females, almost 40% of people in camps were underage children. The picture has been used even in several Finnish history books, so please do not explain it cannot be used here also. --Whiskey 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as I showed on Russophobia the sign still exists, in a museum.--Pan Gerwazy 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dividing a section

Could the "Finnish Offensive 1941"-section be divided somehow? At this moment it is very long and difficult to read. —MoRsΞ 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

The authors of this article may not have noticed it, but someone nominated your article for GA. It is clear, however, that you haven't finished it yet as you have some empty subsections to work on under "Finnish Offensive 1941". I would suggest that you remove the GA nomination until the work is finished.

After taking a glance, I have some tips:

1. Be careful about the length of the article. Although length is not a criterion, at 82 KB, it is quite long and it is rather noticeable. You have a few choices on handling the problem. One is to reduce the details of a subsection if there is already another main article covering the topic. Another is to split certain subsections to separate articles of their own. Third is to try to use more of a summary style. The day-by-day operational-level detail, especially the notes of the movements of each division is great for military historians, but as this is an encyclopaedia article, some editing might be order.
2. Avoid the one-sentence paragraphs.
3. Fill out the lead section so that it is a summary of the article, perhaps adding one or two more paragraphs.

This topic is an important contribution to Wikipedia so I hope you get this worked out soon and bring the article back for GA nomination. RelHistBuff 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put up the failed GA template. As I mentioned, I believe the main authors did not even know the article was nominated, but in any case the article has to be treated and taken off the list if the nomination is not self-removed. For purposes of the GA process, I list the main reasons of failure as

1. it is not complete and missing certain subsections (failing criterion 3) and
2. it dwells too much on battle details so that the prose is no longer compelling (failing criterion 1)

Keep working at it and renominate it again. RelHistBuff 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a main contributor I agree. I recognize that article is going too deeply in the issue, but I still plan to make whole 1941 in the similar manner initially, add the maps, and then shorten it on the second round for the suitable length. 1942-3 are easy, as not much happened, but then the 1944 is going to be more lengthy. --Whiskey 08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Propaganda? :)

Some clearly errant statement about recapture of Karelian isthmus as "second largest offensive after D-Day". Have you guys heard of Kursk, Bagration, Stalingrad, Berlin? Neither D-Day was the largest, nor that Soviet operation was larger then any of other offensives on eastern fronts. "50 mm" guns look suspicious also, and 45-mms are dedicated AT guns. Say, 76.2 mm and up are used for artillery preparations.

Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) I try to go this throught, although slowly, and weed out those idiocies.--Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Omg that para is total rubbish indeed... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly exaggerated, but still one of the major Soviet strategic offenses, see Fourth strategic offensive --MoRsE 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to the text there, but the figures (I will need to rewrite the later article I see) MoRsE 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the author who wrote that meant after D-Day in the meaning that After June 6, D-Day attack. Not that D-Day was the largest, 4th Offensive second. In that way it is true, it was started June 9. But anyway yeah.. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the campaignbox?

--Nielswik_(talk) 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a campaign box, but I think the information needs to be checked, as I don't have my rference material with me right now (I am currently travelling abroad).MoRsE 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Finnish defeat

From the recent edit war I must say: Continatuation War's basic pilar was Operation Barbarossa. That was an Axis defeat, not Soviet victory. When USSR brought new reserves to Karelian front, they wasted much time and troops which could have been used in race to Berlin. When Finnish troops retreated to pre 1939 border, SU lost 9 decisive battles in a row. SU didn't occupy any new areas that it didn't have in 1940. The early war was a success for the Finns, and USSR wanted even a peace treaty which would have been beneficial to Finland. Therefore I wouldn't call it a Soviet victory, like I wouldn't call Barbarossa, but Finland didn't won it either. It lost. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finns managed to stale the Soviet advance at Tali-Ihantala, but there is no question what the outcome would have been if the war would have continued for 2-3 months. The Finns managed to secure an armistice at the precise right point to maintain their independence. It was in their last hour. --MoRsE 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish troops didn't retreat to the pre-1939 border. In the war's end, the Finnish troops were deep in the Soviet soil, except for the very narrow Soviet spearhead in the Karelian Isthmus, due to the Finnish decision not to want to fight in the two cities, built to a large extend by the Finnish blood, i.e. Leningrad and Viipuri.

The fight was taken to the nearby woods, where the Soviet army was beaten. The Finns should have taken the area of this spearhead back, before the diplomacy took place. Finland's army was in a better shape than ever. New tanks were still in packages, not cleaned up from the oil, etc. Stalin respected only power. The western powers would have helped Finland's position in the ensuing negotiations.

"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my tost to the Finnish army." - Josef Stalin - 1948, Teheran.

213.216.199.6 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The above text is not in accordance with general analysis of contemporary and current military analysts. First you propably mean 1940-border. Second, Finns did want to keep Viipuri but it was unsuccessful. Third, Finns didn't took the fight to the forests, in fact all the decisive battles in Karelian Isthmus and also the Battle of Nietjärvi were fought in cultured soil. Only Battle of Ilomantsi was fought in the forest. Fourth, there was discussions about counter attack on the Isthmus before negotiations, but military leadership considered its success highly unlikely as well as pointless and Soviet forces were building defensive fortification along the frontline. Fifth, new tanks (and planes)were in reality quite few in numbers, so they would not bring Finnish forces to quantitative parity with Soviets. Sixth, western powers were still bogged down with Germany and unlikely to anger SU at that time. --Whiskey 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh... and above quote was spoken in Moscow, not in Teheran. --Whiskey 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tali-Ihantala battles indeed were "in the woods". Where in the world are you getting your information from ? The area of the battles is still "woods" today, as we speak.

01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 213.216.199.6

The fellow before me was - for some reason - talking about the "1939" border.

213.216.199.6 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

213.216.199.6: there were no realistic possibility to regain the lost ground. The numbers were very uneven, in the favor of the Soviets, and the Finns were preparing to withdraw to the Salpa-line, if that one would have broken, then the Soviets would have flooded the country. The only thing left would have been some guerrilla warfare, a tactic that proved unsuccessful both in the Baltics and in Ukraine after the war. The Finns were war weary, the weapons were few and not all too useful. StuG III:s had only a limited capability, Pz IV's were too few and came too late. AT-guns were too few, AT-weapons like Panzerschreck's and -faust were too few and came too late, and they are of a defensive character, not offensive. Even if the cooperation with Germany would have continued, the German aid would have quickly stopped when the new offensive against Germany itself began. --MoRsE 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To MoRsE: Finns were preparing the Salpaline to the fight, but Finns were not preparing to withdraw to Salpaline at the end of the Continuation War. (Unlike in the Winter War, Finns were preparing to withdraw from the eastern portions of the Mannerheim Line when the peace came.)

To User:213.216.199.6: Just go and check few aerial reconnaisence photos Finns took during the battle. It is as easy to see that most of the area was cultivated. Only substantial forested area was 200-400m wide running 3km northwards 1km west of Ihantala-Portinhoikka road, and ending to Pyörökangas, and the fields started again north from Pyörökangas. The fields were broken by small, rocky hills (which did have woods, as the land was unsuitable for cultivation), and Finns did prepare their defences to these hills in obvious reasons. (And for those who don't figure it out, I'd say that it wasn't because of the trees.) --Whiskey 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey: A peripheral part of a defensive line is of little use when the line itself is breeched. They were barely holding out at the time of armistice, but after the Salpa defense line and the natural obstacle of the Kymi river, there would have been little to stop a Soviet advance on the Finnish capital and the rest of the country. --MoRsE 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, could you be more specific which war you are referring at a time? In the Continuation War, Soviets were ordered to defensive in Karelian Isthmus at the July 15 and also later in other parts of the front. Also Soviets were transferring their spearhead units to the German fronts while Finns were recalling already released men back to service. Could you refer a source which claims Finns were barely holding at the time of the armstice. (And again unlike the Winter War, when the Finns *were* barely holding the line at the time of the peace.) --Whiskey 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about late 1944, not the Winter War. I will search for the documents when I get home from work. MoRsE 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who won the war - statements by key figures

This digression by User:... but a war broke out (a.k.a User:Love is all we need) was removed from article text. Moved here by Petri Krohn 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.

Only a token of this land USSR had gained on the battle fields. In the war's end, Finland had - after abandoning the City of Viipuri - won all the remaining nine consecutive final battles, which would determine the outcome of the war. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.

Ever since its initial attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a lose, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns, while those escaping death were driven back east.

In these respects - from the military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. In the end, her troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for a narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.

Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that. There was no official pact signed between the two nations, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.

Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period.

By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations, it had controlled the Finnish elections, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border, etc.

All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands Finland refused to honor:

Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).

These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12-13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

Thus, as Finland's current President Tarja Halonen recently once again reminded the world in a speech in Paris, the Continuation War was a separate war from the World War Two, with a separate armistice in 1944, independent from the German armistice and trials of WW2 later. Whereas many of the Italian and German key figures were executed, Field Marshal Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in the job until March 4, 1946.

In his memoirs, the Field Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes, how Finland - importantly - had prepared for a defense - rather than offense -, coming up to the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Thus, rearranging the troops to offensive formations to the level of the city of Viipuri took all of three weeks to accomplish, and another three weeks had to be spent to spread the offensive to the north side of the Lake Ladoga.

Although the Soviet history writing of the Cold War period had appeared to have all but forgotten the Winter War, since the break up of the Soviet Union the new Russian leaders - beginning from Boris Yeltsin - have publicly admitted to the Soviet Union having started not only the Winter War but the Continuation War as well. This has encouraged a new choir of voices to join those no longer chanting the mantras of the Gold War period about a Finnish defeat:

In his last interview, on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth followed the suite:

"I, having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War, could stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. Particularly the Continuation War ended to a defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the word."

In his memoirs, Josef Stalin's predecessor Nikita Khrushchev points out how the Soviet Union categorically lied about the results and casualties of the battles on the Finnish front. In the praised Russian book Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944 ("The Battle of Leningrad") edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, it is stated:

"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and repulse all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21."

The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto spoke at a seminar held in August, 1994, in the North Karelian city of Joensuu, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Finnish victory in the crucial Battle of Ilomantsi. The future President of Finland witnessed this battle as a soldier in a reconnaissance company commanded by the legendary Finnish war hero and a Knight of the Mannerheim Cross, Captain Lauri Törni (who later became a legend also in USA as a Green Beret under the name Larry Thorne, raised to the rank of major upon his disappearance in Laos in 1965, during the Vietnam War):

In the summer of 1944, when the Red Army launched an all-out offensive, aimed at eliminating Finland, the Finns were "extremely hard-pressed", President Koivisto itenerated, but they "did not capitulate".

"We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President said, "and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back."

In a speech held on September 4th, 1994, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, ending the Finnish-Soviet hostilities, the Prime Minister of Finland Esko Aho declared:

"I do not see a defeat in the summer's battles, but the victory of a small nation over a major power, whose forces were stopped far short of the objectives of the Soviet leadership. Finland was not beaten militarily ..."

"Finland preserved her autonomy and her democratic social system ..."

"Finland ... won the peace."

In the 1943 Allied leaders' Tehran conference, Josef Stalin referred to the Finnish over-all war efforts as a "defensive" campaign. In Moscow, in 1948, Stalin reminded about his respect for the Finnish defense:

"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish army."

- Josef Stalin

Some of the bits above could be hammered into usefulness -- a section on perceptions of the war today, for example -- but as it stands it's a purely one-sided essay. As far as the outcome of the war goes, as far as I'm concerned, if you end the war with less land than you had when you started, you lost. --Stlemur 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most claims from the essay above could be hammered into bits when comparing them to modern historic research. There are some sentences where the factual contents is (almost) correct, but they have to be rewritten because of POV. --Whiskey 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This text is far more appropriate in Military history of Finland during World War II than here. Also, the quotes of politicians tell more about those who is quoted and the situation where the quote is given, not about the historical research or interpretation of what really happened or motives behind. --Whiskey 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why areas were ceded

Yes (user Stlemur), the Finnish armed forces won, but the politicians lost, in a way. It may seem strange. In 1943 the Soviets decided on a policy, to be used in the war's end: The Winter War was to be wiped out from the Soviet history writing and propaganda in the ensuing future. Finland was to be tainted as the aggressor, and as an ally of Germany.

Thus, Finland was also going to be portrayed as a loser in the end of her war, regardless how her war would end, because Germany would lose, as could be predicted already in 1943. Even if the Finnish forces would have been all the way on the Ural mountains in the end of her war, Finland probably would have had to cede some territory.

This Soviet propaganda strategy would be continued all the way through the Cold War, i.e making Finland guilty for her war against the Soviet Union.

Many believe that the Finnish forces actually should have conquered back the narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, before the final negotiations should have been concluded. Based on this theory, the West would have not allowed Stalin to further act against Finland after Berlin's defeat.

Masa62 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many? No. Only very few, and not a single serious military historian or military expert. --Whiskey 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been many. In Finland, however, one must have kept quiet. Finlandization still has not ended, although a bit of light is shining trough the tunnel.88.113.177.49 12:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the "renewed offensive" theory, in my opinion it is more "renewed history", as it would have been completely unrealistic. The Finnish forces were in a very bad situation and did not have the means nor the will to reconquer the isthmus, even though some pressure had been relieved after the offensive against Finland stalled. Why on earth would they have wanted to gain the isthmus back and loose another 60 000 men? They needed to gain peace before there was nothing let of the country. Perhaps Finland could have withstood 1-2 more months with German aid, but there is a time when you can see a small opening for a political move - and the Finnish politicians acted very good at this very stage, they managed to secure peace and still retain the independence of the country, while maneuvering out of the Finnish-German treaty...you only have to watch other states like Romania and Hungary to see what would have happened if they hadn't. MoRsE 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What "Finnish-German treaty" are you referring to? Please, remember that there was no such a thing.

Anno Domino 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland and Germany had different objectives. No ally treaty signed

In the Summer of 1944 Ribbentrop flew to Helsinki, to request an agreement of a certain kind. For a continued German support, he wanted the Finns to continue fighting, and not to make an early peace with the Soviets.

As the Finnish House of Representatives (eduskunta) would not have ratified any Finnish-German co-operational treaty, tying Finland to Germany, President Ryti sent a personal letter to Hitler instead. In the letter Ryti assured that Finland would not make peace with USSR while he was the President.

Prior to the delivery of the letter, it was red in the Finnish government's meeting, with legal advisors present. It was confirmed that this personal promise would not tie Finland to anything after Ryti had resigned.

Ryti resigned on August 1, 1944. Afterwords, the war historians have determined, that it is highly unlikely that the German assistance for Finland would have ended, even though the letter in question would not have been delivered.

For the actual Finnish defensive battles of the Summer 1944, the main bulk of the material help in question did not make it to Finland in time. However, at the war's end the Finnish armed forces were better equipped than ever before in history. This helped Finland in the ensuing peace negotiations.

Following the Finnish battle victories, some in Finland considered continuing the war efforts, some also recapturing back the narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, before the final peace would be sought for. The remnants of the Soviet elite divisions had been moved away from Finland, to join the Soviet troops advancing towards Berlin. Finland indeed had a couple of options at hand. Possibly the Soviet spearhead could be traded to the Soviet areas which the Finns had in their position.

For better or for worse, the motion to begin the negotiations won 108-45 in a secret session of the Finnish House of Representatives on September 2, 1944. Prime Minister Antti Hackzell was the leader of Finland´s Peace Delegation, until he - rather suspiciously - got a stroke in Moscow on September 14 - the very same day when the Finnish delegation was supposed to meet the Soviet counterparts.

Josef Stalin is known to have spoken favorably about assassinations of his political woes, and - importantly - he is known to act accordingly, numerous times. On Stalin's view, getting writ of the main man on the opposing side solved many problems, and had a tantalizing psychological effect.

What could not be achieved on the battle fields, had to be resolved on the negotiations' table - or, sometimes, just before the negotiating was scheduled to begin - regardless of the methods used. Poisoning was one of Stalin's favorite methods, just like it is today for FSB (KGB:s predecessor).

After his stroke, caused by a suspected food poisoning, Antti Hackzell fell permanently ill, dieing on January 14, 2006.

Anno Domino 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My changes

1. The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation...; The Continuation War was so named in Finland...; Finland has always considered the Continuation War...

   Same info three times!

2. Boris Yeltsin became the first Russian leader ever to publicly admit that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War

   He WAS the "first Russian leader ever" since that war, the others were Soviet leaders and most of them were not Russian, too. Anyways, this needs a source. Did he really mean the Continuation war? Or the Winter war? Or both?

3. ...that the Finns as a people would most likely not have survived the war without cooperating.

   I don't think that either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union actually intended to kill every single Finn in Finland. (added independent)

4. This led to a few excursions to the area...

   What? Excursions? If the Finnish troops really did have "leisure or educational purposes" in mind during their "trip", then they have seriously misbehaved! ;-) (changed to incursions)

5. Finland had no alternative but to turn to Germany.

   Even if you are eaten there are always two ways out. ;-) (added felt that)

6. Ivan Zotov behaved undiplomatically and strove to advance Soviet interests in Finland. In his reports he recommended that Finland ought to be finished off and wholly annexed by the Soviet Union.

   Every single diplomat in the world strives to further his country's interests if he's any good. The rest warrants a source (even though it's probably true).

The rest of the changes are mostly cosmetic. Please note that countries posess a neutral gender in English.--Illythr 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, there was no other possible way out, except - perhaps - a God's miracle. What other way? Explain! The only other way was a cold and final trip to Siberia, familiar from e.g. the Baltic nations' history, even though those nations did not put up a fight, worth mentioning.

Well, you see, there's the other way - become an SSR! :) Not that it was acceptable to Finland, of course, but that's why I added the Finland felt that part. Subjectivity versus objectivity. ;) --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article did already indicate your point, that already during the war the leader of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, accepted the fact that the Finns were fighting a defensive war (and yes, often members of the Soviet leadership were not Russian).

Nikita Khrushchev - in his memoirs - then told about the Soviet lying policies. Boris Yeltsin's statements came upon the break up of the Soviet Union, also - much later - Putin's coinciding referral to Yeltsin's earlier remarks.

Swedish Speaker 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, "my point" up there concerns only the form of that one particular sentence. Mainly, the "first Russian leader ever" part. And it does need a citation, to avoid misinterpretation and all. --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

World's no. 1 university (Professor Kennedy) distorts the truth: Finland was "flattened"

Those not familiar with the recent Finnish history: Please, join the braking of totalitarian history writing, and the myths it has spread. Let us together wipe out Finlandization from the face of the earth.

I would rather wipe the article out of Wikipedia. It is total crap. -- Petri Krohn 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas one "dictator", Adolf Hitler, was toppled, the other - the winner -, Josef Stalin, is the center of admiration for the current Soviet president, Vladimir Putin, an ex -KGB agent and the ex-chief of FSB (new name for KGB). Putin himself has praised Stalin in several occasions.

No wonder some still are under the spell of the KGB propaganda. Finland could win the battles of the actual war, but not the huge propaganda war and the distortion of history writing of the Cold War period.

KGB was controlling our media, and the history writing about these events, fully. Even in the end of the famous Finnish movie, The Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon sotilas), a Finnish soldier had to be set to a final battle stage, to state that the Finns had lost the war.

How in the world could that soldier have "known" to state something like that, and - importantly - at that point, when no deal about the borders was yet done. In the real world, all he was aware of, was that Finland had just won all the final battles - including the very last one -, and that the Finnish troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for that narrow spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was broken as well, in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

The world's top university, the Stanford University, has successfully competed of the no. 1 spot in the world in the amount of Nobel prizes. Yet, their history professor has up till recently taught his students, that the Finnish army was "flattened" by the Red Army.

The world's long time leading TV documentary - made in co-operation between the Soviets and the Americans - distortedly claims, that Finland started the Continuation war. Nothing is mentioned about the initiating all-out Soviet attack against Finnish cities. Black arrows are offered to show the main "Nazi" attack routes. Big black arrow is set to the Finnish Karelia, pointing east.

"The ignorance of even the best-informed observers in the West about Finland's part in World War II is astounding.

Take the British Major General H.M. Tillotson's book Finland at Peace & War - 1918-1993, for example. It was written in close collaboration with Finland's Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense, Defense Staff, Commission of Military History, Military Archives and Military Museum, to mark, in 1993, the 75th anniversary of the armed forces in independent Finland."

Yet, in its 354 pages, the book has room for only one sentence about the single most important battle, perhaps, fought in Finland's Continuation War - and arguably, in entire Northern Europe -, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

There are numerous other examples of the so called Finlandization and the results of the massive Soviet propaganda, which was set forth on the expense of the often suffering - and often starving - Soviet citizens. What the wars could not accomplish, the overwhelming propaganda machine was designed to fix.

However - on the long run -, the Soviet money was not spent wisely here, either. Today, the Soviet Union no more exists. Finland - however - does well.

Join us in a battle against totalitarian history writing. Let's together reveal, what really happened. The American Paul Sjöblom had it right. Let us not turn the tide back to the Soviet Union ways. Finland did not capitulate ! "Myths die hard" (Mr. Sjöblom - a journalist - has passed away, to eternity, since he wrote the below article):

http://www.kaiku.com/notcapitulate.html - Thank you, Mr. Sjöblom !

Swedish Speaker 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really are concerned of the issue, there is only one remedy: facts! Facts! And facts! You should drop all pathos and politics and stick strictly to the facts. The propaganda works only so long when people don't know all facts. Against cold, sourced facts even the best propaganda becomes toothless. Otherwise, you will be doomed to the same category as propagandists and your actions become counterproductive. --Whiskey 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, those should be black arrows. Red are for the Soviets. --Illythr 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) --> Thanks. They were changed to black (a blooper). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggest archiving

As the talk page has become quite bloated, I propose to archive closed discussions (sections 2 through 7 and 9 through 18). --Illythr 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)